Replies

You think they have circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence, that Zimmerman committed murder, or even manslaughter?

They do not.

On another thread you claimed that he could be convicted of murder 2 if a jury believes he continued to “pursue” Martin at a key point in the narrative.

I asked you there, and here, what is meant by “pursue”? The defense will have a grand romp with that one. All evidence shows him to be watching Martin and trying to help police with the location so they could send someone. He observed suspicious behaviour which could easily have been Martin casing the backs of dwellings, in the dark and a rainstorm, and was trying to direct the police to his location.

Therefore, even if he continued to track Martin...not saying he did, after a key point...but even if he did, he was trying to id his location for police.

This is a dream defense case. WHo calls the police non emergency number and stays on the line with them, while intending to attack someone they are watching???

You tell me.

Circumstantial evidence, indeed!

All, PRO Zimmerman.

I wouldn’t even characterize the evidence as circumstantial...in fact, I am at a loss as to what the ‘evidence’ is. As far as I can tell, they have:

1. Martin’s mother says its his voice yelling for help. My response - if that were true, why isn’t this a First Degree Murder Case? Everybody knows its impossible to identify a top of the lungs scream, as heard through a window, as transmitted through a cell phone, as recorded bythe 911 system. Its useless as evidence. BTW - this notion that there is no existing recording of Martin’s voice, to compare with...none of his friends had any voice mails from him saved on their phone? Martin’s own voice mail greeting did not have his voice? Very unlikely.

2. The notion that Zimmerman ‘pursued’ Martin, even after being told to stop. I assume this is the ‘depraved mind’ inspired act, which constitutes Murder 2. My response - in the 911 call, you can hear Zimmerman’s breathing calm down, as he has clearly stopped jogging, and is walking. The operator asks him his home address...and Zimmerman won’t give it, because he says he dos not know where Martin is (and is afraid he might overhear the address). At this poitn, any problems resulting from the ‘pursuit’ are over. Contact has been lost...and Martin has had more than enough time to walk home. But another confrontation occurs. We have no idea who started it...but we do know that the ‘pursuit’ was not the ‘cause’ of this confrontation. So, we are left with a guy with a bloody head, saying he acted in self defense. The state has to prove otherwise...and they can’t.

3. They have soem testimony from a teenage 911 caller, who changed her original story...but admits to not actually seeing the confrontation. Useless as evidence.

So, I’m at a loss as to what the ‘evidence’ is.

“All the evidence is circumstantial. “

Did the witness reply, “The only evidence we have is circumstantial”?

Or was it that there was no evidence?

For example, suppose there had NOT been any powder burns on Martin’s clothing. That would strongly suggest the shot was taken at something other than contact range, and would be evidence about the start of the fight.

Or suppose they had conflicting witness statements, with someone saying they heard Zimmerman shouting racial slurs. That would be evidence that Zimmerman was acting as an aggressor.

But it seems they do not.

"All the evidence is circumstantial."

A case in which there are no witnesses and all the evidence is circumstantial might be a burglary where there might be things like fingerprints, blood from a suspect getting cut from a broken window, shoe tracks, or tire tracks.

The Martin case has a subject who was shot, witness statements, a shooter and a statement from the shooter, blood and injuries to both the subject who was shot and to the shooter, tape recordings of the dispatcher and Zimmerman prior to the shooting, and observations of the police and medical personal at the scene. If the case goes to a jury, there is a lot of "direct" evidence here.